Zest Ip Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg. LLC

ORDER: 1) STRIKING
MOTIONS [Dkt. Nos. 443, 447, 458.] 2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MULTIPLE BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS NOTICED FOR THE
SAME HEARING DATE [Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.]

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(h), "[b]riefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the motion. Civ. L. R. 7.1(h). Due to the district court's inherent power to control its docket, United States v. W.R. Grace , 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), this Court has discretion to grant or deny requests for leave to file briefs or memoranda in excess of this limitation. See, e.g., Traylor Bros. Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-cv-1019-L(WVG), 2012 WL 1019966 at *2 (Mar. 26, 2012) (Lorenz, J.).

As of the date of this order, the IDSI Defendants have filed the following motions noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.: (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 443); (2) Motion to Exclude Expert Report, (Dkt. No. 444); (3) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 447); (4) Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 458). IDSI has indicated intent to file "one additional motion on or before the August 15, 2014 deadline, " (Dkt. No. 461 at 2), although IDSI has not informed the Court regarding the subject matter of the additional motion.

In addition, the Implant Direct Defendants have filed one motion to exclude an expert report, (Dkt. No. 450), currently set for hearing on October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Implant Direct has indicated intent to "file at least four motions" on or by August 15, 2014, "related to different topics in the litigation." (Dkt. No. 457 at 1.)

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to file multiple full-sized briefs in support of multiple motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment far in excess of the limitations prescribed by Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). IDSI seeks to file well over a hundred pages of briefing in support of its motions, while Implant Direct similarly seeks leave to file over a hundred pages of briefing in support of its motions. Neither will the Court allow Defendants to circumvent the requirements of Rule 7.1(h) by granting Defendants a separate hearing date for each motion. The Court has already allowed IDSI to file one motion with a separate hearing date. (See Dkt. No. 456) (set for hearing on October 3, 2014).

However, the Court recognizes that the issues in this case are multiple and complex. Exercising the Court's inherent authority to control its docket, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motions to enlarge the briefing allowed in support of its motions noticed for hearing on October 10, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.) Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court STRIKES IDSI's motions for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative for summary judgment, noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. Nos. 443, 447, 458.)

2. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part IDSI's motion for enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 461.) The Court GRANTS IDSI leave to re-file its dispositive motions and file a single, omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or motions for summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.[1] The single, omnibus brief may not exceed sixty (60) pages in length, and shall be due on or by Monday, August 18, 2014.

4. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Implant Direct's motion for enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 457.) The Court similarly GRANTS Implant Direct leave to file a single, omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or motions for summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. The single, omnibus brief ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.